It's a trap

Originally posted by sonship
Let's say you do not want to "convert" me. You just want to show me that I was never really "converted" to begin with.

You're being paranoid. I'm not trying to convert you. I don't want you to follow me. I think you are sincere in your beliefs. I'm happy for you if it offers you comfort and a sense of purpose.

Originally posted by sonship
So me and me is not my concern as if personal vindication is all that is at stack.

I am just giving you feedback that's all. It's not about whether you feel personal vindication or not as a result. I listen to what you say, and I give you feedback. If you don't want feedback and it makes you paranoid and prickly to get it, and if that's not the reaction you want your long circular-logic monologues to have, you should consider preaching exclusively to other Christians on web sites designed for that. If you want to turn this forum into a Christianity Forum, you should put the idea to Russ, the web site's owner.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
"absolute truth"
"incisive CS Lewis quote"
"perfect justice"

Those are some that convince me a discussion will be fruitless.

Anyone have any others?

Hey! I have an idea. Why don't you start a fruitless discussion? 🙄

Originally posted by FMF
I am just giving you feedback that's all. It's not about whether you feel personal vindication or not as a result. I listen to what you say, and I give you feedback. If you don't want feedback and it makes you paranoid and prickly to get it, and if that's not the reaction you want your long circular-logic monologues to have, you should consider preaching exclusi ...[text shortened]... urn this forum into a Christianity Forum, you should put the idea to Russ, the web site's owner.

Boy are you prickly this morning.

So you give feedback. So take some feedback as well.

Feedback (on the perfect justice complaint) - We human beings likely have a lopsided appreciation of getting out from under wrong doing - a vested interest. A congress of thieves cannot be trusted to determine what the penalty for stealing should be without a vested interest in leniency.

Say "Hi!" to this Russ for me.

Originally posted by sonship
Boy are you prickly this morning.

Not at all. I am being very matter of fact, as it happens. You are misreading the situation completely.

Originally posted by sonship
A congress of thieves cannot be trusted to determine what the penalty for stealing should be without a vested interest in leniency.

What is "the penalty for stealing" according to your God figure?

Originally posted by FMF
I am just giving you feedback that's all. It's not about whether you feel personal vindication or not as a result. I listen to what you say, and I give you feedback. If you don't want feedback and it makes you paranoid and prickly to get it, and if that's not the reaction you want your long circular-logic monologues to have, you should consider preaching exclusi ...[text shortened]... urn this forum into a Christianity Forum, you should put the idea to Russ, the web site's owner.

I do want feedback, so i can demonstrate sometimes how bogus such feedback is. You fill that part pretty well often.

Originally quoted by sonship
" I will tell you Who is the one you need to fear. You need to fear this One whose authority and power have no end to its reach. This is the One you need to fear."

How is this supposed to spread "fear" to people who think it's nonsense? Or is the intended target of this stuff about fear just Christians who believe that it's real?

Originally posted by FMF
What is "the penalty for stealing" according to your God figure?

That is not really "feedback". That is iterative skepticism by questioning.

Like "How do you know that? But how do you know that? But how do you know that?"

That tactic of endless questioning is worse than a monologue.

Originally posted by sonship
I do want feedback, so i can demonstrate sometimes how bogus such feedback is. You fill that part pretty well often.

When you suddenly bail out of discussions with me about your torturer God ideology by saying that I am not as convincing to you as Jesus, or asking me what mythology do I have to offer that trumps yours... you're not counting THAT kind of thing as demonstrating how bogus my feedback supposedly was, I hope!

Originally posted by sonship
That is not really "feedback". That is iterative skepticism by questioning.

Like "How do you know that? But how do you know that? But how do you know that?"

That tactic of endless questioning is worse than a monologue.

If you believe that we humans cannot be trusted to determine what the penalty for stealing should be, where do you get your notion of a just penalty for stealing from?

Originally posted by sonship
That tactic of endless questioning is worse than a monologue.

Why would I offer you a monologue? I am not trying to de-convert you. Nor am I trying to get you to follow me instead of Jesus. What would be the point of me making monologues? My questions about the far-fetched claims you make about the reality in which I live get straight to the point and address what is found to be weak about your monologues. You are only complaining because you find a lot of them hard.

Originally posted by FMF
Why would I offer you a monologue? I am not trying to de-convert you. Nor am I trying to get you to follow me instead of Jesus. What would be the point of me making monologues? My questions about the far-fetched claims you make about the reality in which I live get straight to the point and address what is found to be weak about your monologues. You are only complaining because you find a lot of them hard.

Why would I offer you a monologue?

I said your iterative skeptical questioning was worse than a monolog.

I am not trying to de-convert you.

Okay. I'll take that back.
See? I got de-converted.

Nor am I trying to get you to follow me instead of Jesus. What would be the point of me making monologues?

Where's the Reading Comprehension Police ? I said your iterative skeptical questioning was worse than a monologue.

My questions about the far-fetched claims you make about the reality in which I live get straight to the point and address what is found to be weak about your monologues. You are only complaining because you find a lot of them hard.

Some of them are hard.
It seems more often your posts are just "get em talkin" repetitive questions.


I ask myself hard questions too.
I do not shy away from hard questions asked in genuine interest.

"Far-fetched" Well, we have this Person here in history - Jesus. Some of the conspiracy theories to explain the phenomenon away are really far-fetched.

How can eternal punishment be perfect justice ?

That is not an easy question. I have admitted it is a hard one.

Here's another though -

How can God bestow upon His creatures what He Himself did not have to give - a higher sense of justice so that He has to turn around and come to us to get educated ?

Originally posted by FMF
If you believe that we humans cannot be trusted to determine what the penalty for stealing should be, where do you get your notion of a just penalty for stealing from?

Your question veils a faulted self-evident theme.
It assumes those who have a distaste or even indignant repulsion of some named act are fit enough to not only create and enact rules intended to inform public perception of the act, but also to mete out any punishment for trespass.
The biggest obstacle is more in the former than the latter, although they are both problematic.

Smaller matter first.
There exists a hypocrisy in all levels of judgement when the judge lacks integrity--- the extended version, not the one which relies solely on honesty.
No matter what the law, if the person making the decision lacks a fiber consistent with the rules of governance, they also lack the moral authority to pass judgement upon even the clearly guilty.

But it's the law itself (no matter what it is) that poses the most difficult problem here.
It's easy to make rules consistent with my character or lack thereof: these are merely reflective of my internal thought processes.
Creating a law based on what trespasses my nature is short sighted and bereft of objectivity--- and, as you are all aware, I'm a pretty kick-ass guy!

For the act to truly be an affront, an actual trespass, it must stand in defiance to an unchanging, absolute standard.
Hint: this is where God comes in...

Originally posted by sonship
It seems more often your posts are just "get em talkin" repetitive questions.

They are linked to your repetitive 'don't stop to think about these, just accept them' torture God ideology-based assertions. If you answer them with even a modicum of coherence them they will stop.